masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Erinya
Erinya's Daughters Please note that we have absolutly no solid evidence that Nelyna or Saphyria, the greeter for the consort and the embassy receptionist respectivly, are Erinya's daughters. As this video shows, one of Erinya's daughters works in the embassies, but she doesn't get into specifices. Also there are quite a few asari that work at the consort chambers, and Nelyna probably isn't the only greeter, just the one that Shepard happens to encounter. Overall becuase there is no solid evidence, and becuase there are many asari that work in both places, we can't say for certain that Nelyna or Saphyria are Erinya's daughters so it is speculation. Lancer1289 04:47, July 23, 2010 (UTC) :Right. Still, not in spite of that agreement, it isn't known that "many asari" work as a greeter for the Consort, nor in the Embassy, right? In ME 1, anyway, there is (at least, factually speaking) only 1 greeter (the other acolytes don't greet, but meet), and only one person who works in the embassy (unless we count the VI). Is there more to this in the books or comics? I don't know those. AnotherRho 06:28, September 3, 2010 (UTC) ::That idea is based on the assumption that the other asari seen working at the Consort's office don't also serve as greeters at least some of the time. After all, Nelyna makes it clear that she too has a specialty that she uses to service customers. So, when she's off doing that part of the job, is there just no greeter? Additionally, why artificially limit it to the ones Shepard has seen? Does Erinya state that her daughters were working there when Shepard was there? Or that Shepard may have met them? No. These are arbitrary assumptions that artificially skew the argument. SpartHawg948 06:31, September 3, 2010 (UTC) :::Spart, regarding this speech, I just wish to be clear that I have no desire to cause or participate in anything other than friendly discourse and reflection with you. ::: That being said, I asked because... it'll be easier to quote-and-post. - "That idea is based on the assumption that etc." Yes, the question was meant to do two things: (1) ask if there's anything known regarding the assumption that there are other "greeters", and other asari working in the embassies; and (2) in the likelihood that there is no such evidence, to call to mind that we are assuming there to be others, in the very same breath that we are refusing to admit speculation as being based on mere assumptions. - "Does Erinya state that her daughters were working there when Shepard was there?" By inference, yes: they were killed during the geth attack, she says; but Shepard was there within 1 or 2 minutes of the geth attack (and Shepard encountered them, repeatedly, at the Citadel in the general period leading up to the attack). - "Or that Shepard may have met them? No." Agreed. With the evidence given us in the artificial universe of ME, she could not have known whether they had met Shepard (e.g., Erinya doesn't even seem to know that Shepard was the human that saved the Citadel). - "why artificially limit it to the ones Shepard has seen?" Because Mass Effect is in fact a work of artifice. In dramatic writing (including ME-like games, theater, movies), hints, suggestions, foreshadow, etc., typically must serve to inform the reader/viewer (etc.) of what is intended. :::So, to repeat, the argument put forward that refutes the original speculation, is also based on speculation. Look Sparthawg, you've always been helpful to me on here, and in any case I'm not trying to cause beef. Just wish to suggest that the argument which refutes the "speculation" is inadequate. Still, and luckily, we don't need to refute speculations to exclude them. AnotherRho 07:22, September 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::I'm not basing the refusal to include it on speculation. I'm basing my case against speculation on one cold hard fact. It is never stated that her daughters are Nelyna or Saphyria. As such, statements suggesting that they are, are speculative, and speculation is not permitted, per site guidelines. My last comment was meant to answer yours using the same sort of induction you were using. I was hoping that be providing (admittedly equally speculative) arguments in kind, coming from an in-universe perspective, as opposed to the out-of-universe "It isn't stated, so it's speculation" perspective I take when removing it, that you might see that the arguments you are making can easily be used to make a case against their being her daughters. SpartHawg948 07:28, September 3, 2010 (UTC) :::::The things you miss. Anyway this is why I keep removing it, we have only speculation and no supporting facts apart from a few vague comments that have evidence against them. Until we know something more, it's still very much speculation. Lancer1289 12:45, September 3, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Since we're talking about a video game, I think the principle of "Chekhov's gun" gives us enough reason to put this back in. The at least implied relationship gives the player more emotional involvement in the back story, knowing the daughters in person. This definitely benefits the reader. Otherwise this info is lost on this talk page like many gems in Mass Effect. Please :) ? LegioN 07:38, May 3, 2011 (UTC) :::::::The link is bad, so without going and looking up Chekhov's Gun myself, I'm not quite sure what it is. That said, provide evidence that supports the claim, evidence that meets the standards of the speculation policy, and sure. it can go back in. SpartHawg948 07:48, May 3, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::I'm very sorry, I added the link in plain text at the end. What it basically says is: Writer's don't put details in that aren't relevant. While I see the point that there is no in-game evidence that definitely proves it, I think every user who reads about this at least in the trivia will leave this page a happier man. Or in this case sader, of course. Thank you for considering. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun LegioN 07:54, May 3, 2011 (UTC) :::::::(edit conflict) Having looked into it more, I can't see the relevance of Chekhov's gun. The aforementioned principle involves the introduction of items into the plot that, while seemingly innocuous at the time, become significant later. This doesn't really seem to apply here, as the case can easily be made that the characters Nelyna and Saphyria are as significant when encountered in the first game as the deaths of Erinya's daughters are in the second. Neither of the characters has any great impact, nor does Erinya or the deaths of her daughters. SpartHawg948 07:58, May 3, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::Chevkov says, "One must not put a loaded rifle on the stage if no one is thinking of firing it". Putting exactly those two jobs out of dozens in the dialog has a meaning. Erinya's two daughters having the same jobs as the only two interactible Asari with a workplace in the Presidium (aside from the consort) is no coincidence from a writers viewpoint. They could've been C-Sec officers, dancers, barkeepers, gamblers, technicians, merchants, diplomats, assistants, medical personal, bodyguards, bankers, drug runners, smugglers, pirates, hell even Spectres (No doubt you see where I'm going with this, so I'll stop here). But no, they work in the embassy and as a Consort greeter. There is no such thing as coincidence in a written environment. Implying that those two are the ones who died even serves a purpose, it makes you care more because you are connected. There's so much writing principle in this, I find it hard to ignore. Again, this is no definite in-game proof but it's strong enough to be worth mentioning in the trivia section. It is both impactful and interesting that you may have met the daughters and is not in any way the sort of speculation the Manual of Style speculation policy is talking about. Don't be a square :) LegioN 13:22, May 3, 2011 (UTC) :::::::So where is your proof that they are because I still don't see any. There is no proof that they are teh same people, in fact, we have no confirmed evidence that either one is dead. You are asking us to put in trivia based solely on speculation and supposition, and neither of which is an excuse for trivia. You say there is no such thing as a coincidence in a written environment, yet the fact that Kenneth Donnelly, one of the Normandy's engineers, resembles Scotty from Star Trek was a coincidence because no one noticed it until after the game was released and fans pointed it out. Basing something on the fact that you say there is no such thing as a coincidence is also not valid trivia because I have just demonstrated one, and I can probably find more in Mass Effect, and other places. :::::::And just pointing out that this is exactly what is covered under the Speculation Policy and seriously don't tell people to be square when you want to bend/break the rules to get something in that is against policy. Actually calling people square, no matter if there is a slimily face after it, is really just unnecessary to begin with. Lancer1289 13:33, May 3, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::Kenneth Donnelly is unrelated. Trying to prove me wrong by saying someone else was wrong does not contribute to this discussion. Eristic Dialectics much? The argument about a strong hint still stands. (But by the way, Kenneth's Trivia is still there since the observed resemblance is undeniable. If this intentionally or unintentionally or not disclosed as intentional because of copyright issues is not relevant. The conclusions drawn from observation were and are valid.) Anyway, read carefully, I said there is no proof. I'm not trying to make up facts, I merely try add information, at least for the reader to judge. I'm also not asking you to put anything anywhere, I'd just like you to consider putting this in here somewhere. This is why I'm not just adding things here before building a consensus. I respect both of you as very active members of this community and thank you for your efforts. That said, I don't mean to lecture/annoy you: But the speculation policy as stated in the Manual of Style, as I understand it, permits substantiated speculation if it is labeled as such. To quote: Speculation is permitted in articles under the following circumstances: It is clearly marked as being speculation, either under a “speculation” heading or with the sentence “some speculate that—” at the beginning of the paragraph. Mass_Effect_Wiki:Manual_of_Style#Speculation There it is, white on blue. This possible relationship is not pulled out of thin air, it makes sense in-game and certainly from a writers viewpoint. So why not put it in a speculation, I'm quite sure more people are wondering about this connection. I really can't understand why you wouldn't want information added that players might have missed in their play through or might not recall. LegioN 14:49, May 3, 2011 (UTC) :::::::How can it not be related? You stated that nothing in a written environment is a coincidence, yet I just proved you wrong, so what was with the link? I've never read the book and I like how you just dismissed it. We have devconfirmation on that trivia, which is the strongest possible trivia there is here, and even BioWare said it was just pure coincidence. There are also a lot of other things that have been proposed for trivia in the past that have also been dismissed as pure coincidence, so it looks like you are proven incorrect again. Some of these have been commented on by BioWare devs as pure coincidence. With the Kenneth trivia, if it wasn't confirmed by BioWare, then that wouldn't be trivia because of lack of support, which was just a subjective visual and voice comparison and not enough for trivia. :::::::So the fact I proved you wrong means nothing does it? There are several things in Mass Effect that have come along as pure coincidence, and despite the developers of the game saying such, you just dismiss them. That seems to run counter to your statement that "there is no such thing as coincidence in a written environment." Coincidences happen every day and just because it is a written environment, doesn't instantly mean there can't be coincidences as we have had several. :::::::You already stated that you don't have proof and the information you want to add is specualtion, and it doesn’t have enough support to make it in. If you will look around, there are no sections that are titled speculation, no paragraphs that start with it, and no trivia with "some speculate that-" as that is a highly subjective statement and is subject to bias. Speculation isn't permitted in articles, and that is exactly what you are arguing for. :::::::There are also a number of other problems with it. One daughter worked in the embassies, but her position was never given. Therefore it is speculation to assume that it is Saphyria as she can be interacted with. It is also speculation to assume that Nelyna is the only greater for the consort. IT is also downright speculation to assume that both even died during the fight as Sha'ira survived. :::::::The bottom one here is that you don't have enough support to put the information in and that is exactly what you are arguing for, putting speculation in that doesn’t even remotely have support. Only speculation, supposition, and a possible coincidence. Which you refuse to acknowledge they exist in teh written world, despite evidence to the contrary. Lancer1289 16:21, May 3, 2011 (UTC) ::::::LegioN, you appear to have missed part of the speculation policy. You picked out the one part that would seem to support your case, but left out several other elements that must be present for an item to be permissible. For example, in order for an item to be permitted under site speculation policy: There is evidence for this speculation." ::::::There it is, white on blue. Where's the evidence here? SpartHawg948 18:50, May 3, 2011 (UTC)